The yellow brick road to censorship

From the National Secular Society...

INCITEMENT TO RELIGIOUS HATE CLAUSES SURVIVE COMMONS REBELLION During an impassioned Commons debate on the proposed new religious hatred legislation, in which several NSS honorary associates spoke, the Government made just one nominal concession - they changed the description of the measure from "inciting racial or religious hatred" to "inciting hatred against persons on racial or religious grounds". However, this did not satisfy its opponents who still saw it as a major threat to free expression. An amendment moved by NSS honorary associate Dr Evan Harris to replace the Government's measure with one much less dangerous to freedom of expression was defeated 291 to 191. Labour MPs were whipped to vote against the amendment, but 25 Labour MPs backed it. The Conservative front bench supported the amendment and allowed a free vote. The amendment had the support of the LibDem front bench and no LibDems voted against it. The amendment would have changed the racial hatred provisions to make clear that they could be used against racial hatred even when this was expressed using religious terms "Muslim" rather than "Pakistani", for example. Dr Harris also tabled an amendment to abolish the blasphemy law. The Government opposed it and imposed a whip against at and it only gained 80 votes, with 339 against. Home Office Minister Hazel Blears told MPs on the substantive question about the religious hatred provisions: "This is about protecting people, not about the ability to criticise, ridicule, lampoon and have fundamental disagreements about beliefs. It is absolutely right in a modern democracy that people should have the ability to engage in that robust and vigorous debate and the position of the government is not that we seek to outlaw that at all." England's only Muslim MP, Khalid Mahmood, drew loud objections from fellow MPs when he defended the attacks on The Satanic Verses, a book that many Muslims wanted banned. Mr Mahmood said: "As far as the Muslim community is concerned, if a preacher from the Christian faith, or any other, wants to make valid criticism as they see it, they are entitled to do that. We are talking about inciting hatred and abuse against people. That is the point we are making - it is a serious issue that has to be dealt with. People of other religions, other than the Sikh community and the Jewish community, feel that there is no protection in this area." (Under case law, Jews and Sikhs are alone regarded as mono-ethnic groups and thus are protected by the racial hatred provisions.) He was challenged by Labour MP Diane Abbott (Hackney), who drew attention to the many Muslims who had opposed the publication of Salman Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses in 1988. She said: "I was a Member of Parliament at the time of The Satanic Verses and there were thousands and thousands of Muslims who believed emphatically that people were not entitled to criticise their religion." Mr Mahmood said: "I am sorry but I take issue with that. It was not a question of making a valid criticism of the religion. In the context of Salman Rushdie, the issue was the abusive words that he deliberately used, which were written in phonetic Urdu..." This drew a loud response from MPs as he explained: "Actual swear words were used within that text." The comedian Rowan Atkinson had explained earlier on the Radio 4 Today programme why he was backing Evan Harris's amendment. He said: "I understand what the intentions of the government are here. I know that they do not intend to militate against people like me or [author] Salman Rushdie or playwrights. But the only safety valve that they have put in the legislation is the fact that the Attorney General will have the final say. A safety valve operated by a politician subject to the political agendas of the day is not to me a good enough safety valve." Mr Atkinson described the legislation as being problematic because it was "all-encompassing". He said: "The incitement of religious hatred doesn't even have to be intended, it is just if it offends any person. It couldn't be more broad." He said that the measure had only been introduced in order to boost support for Labour in the run-up to a general election. "This is undoubtedly a politically motivated move on the government's part because they think it will give them some advantage among certain religious groups in the imminent general election," he said. One of the religious opponents of the Bill, Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance, said: "In our view the changes will make little difference to the Bill because followers of a religion are often inextricably identified with the beliefs themselves. Although the proposals appear superficially reasonable, in practice, the Government is asking people to trust the Attorney General to decide whether to prosecute cases of possible incitement to hatred. This affords no reassurance whatsoever. We envisage that if these clauses in the Bill go through there could be countless complaints to the police that will have to be investigated, potentially criminalizing many law-abiding people and causing confusion, suspicion, mistrust and even a backlash where previously minimal problems existed." Keith Porteous Wood and 'our' Evan Harris attended a meeting in Parliament on Wednesday to plan tactics to maximise opposition in the Lords. Keith told Newsline: "This was another meeting where we were vastly outnumbered by the religious (albeit on our side on this issue), yet the NSS was leading the charge again by proposing the tactics for the forthcoming Lords' battle, which were adopted. We believe that the opposition will be much stronger in the Lords than in the Commons, and we hope it will prevail. The measures form part of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill which is a flagship bill that the Government will be determined to get through before the election. This is expected in May, before which Parliament will need to be dissolved to allow MPs to take part in the hustings. The second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords is not now expected to take place until 7 March. So time is very short and it is just possible that the Government will be forced to abandon their plans on religious incitement if that is the only way they can get the rest of the Bill through."